Literature DB >> 16005261

Tibial somatosensory evoked potential intraoperative monitoring: recommendations based on signal to noise ratio analysis of popliteal fossa, optimized P37, standard P37, and P31 potentials.

D B MacDonald1, Z Al Zayed, B Stigsby.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intraoperative signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), reproducibility and rapidity of popliteal fossa (PF), optimized P37, standard P37 and P31 potentials.
METHODS: Raw sweeps and 11 averages doubling sweep number from 2 to 2048 were compared in 37 patients undergoing scoliosis surgery. Optimized (highest amplitude or SNR) P37 derivations were Cz-CPc (22), CPz-CPc (27), Pz-CPc (7), iCPi-CPc (8), CPi-CPc (1), Cz-Pz (2) or Pz-FPz (3), and in two patients with non-decussation, Cz-CPi (1) or CPz-CPi (3). Standard P37 and P31 derivations were CPz-FPz and FPz-C5S. Signal amplitude was measured in 2048-sweep averages; peak noise was measured in raw sweeps and +/- averages; SNR was amplitude/noise. Visual superimposability and < 20-30% amplitude variation determined reproducibility. Sweeps to reproducibility determined rapidity.
RESULTS: The SNR order was PF >> optimized P37 > standard P37 > P31. Mean optimized P37 SNR advantages over the standard P37 and P31 were 2.1:1 and 4.9:1. SNR had powerful non-linear correlations to reproducibility and rapidity. Median sweeps to reproducibility were PF: 2, optimized P37: 128, standard P37: 512 and P31: 1024. EEG noise was greatest in FPz derivations. Burst-suppression increased scalp potential SNR and rapidity.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimized P37 and PF recordings are most rapidly reproducible due to superior SNRs and are recommended. FPz should be avoided. Burst-suppression may be desirable. SIGNIFICANCE: CPz-FPz and FPz-C5S should no longer be standard.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16005261     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.04.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  6 in total

1.  Alternative anterior reference sites for measuring posterior tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials.

Authors:  John F Bebawy; Dhanesh K Gupta; Matthew A Cotton; Katherine S Gil; Edward B Fohrman; Srdjan Mirkovic; Antoun Koht
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2010-01-09       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  EEG sources of noise in intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during propofol anesthesia.

Authors:  Atte Joutsen; Pasi Puumala; Leo-Pekka Lyytikäinen; Olli Pajulo; Aira Etelämäki; Hannu Eskola; Ville Jäntti
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Four-limb muscle motor evoked potential and optimized somatosensory evoked potential monitoring with decussation assessment: results in 206 thoracolumbar spine surgeries.

Authors:  David B Macdonald; Zayed Al Zayed; Abdulmoneam Al Saddigi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Optimizing the methodology for saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials for monitoring upper lumbar roots and femoral nerve during lumbar spine surgery: technical note.

Authors:  M Ángeles Sánchez Roldán; Francisco Mora Granizo; Victoria Oflidis; Konstantinos Margetis; Maria J Téllez; Sedat Ulkatan; Jun Kimura
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.977

5.  Quasi-stationarity of EEG for intraoperative monitoring during spinal surgeries.

Authors:  Krishnatej Vedala; S M Amin Motahari; Mohammed Goryawala; Mercedes Cabrerizo; Ilker Yaylali; Malek Adjouadi
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-02-17

6.  SEP Montage Variability Comparison during Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring.

Authors:  Christine Hanson; Athena Maria Lolis; Aleksandar Beric
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 4.003

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.